Codebeamer vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability.""It is a stable solution.""Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers.""CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing.""You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily.""The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China.""Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful.""One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."

More Codebeamer Pros →

"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful.""Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature.""The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed.""It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched.""Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements.""So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system.""The solution's support team was always there to help.""The independent view of elevated access is good."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pros →

Cons
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved.""The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup.""The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved.""Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs.""It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now.""The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required.""I would like to see more, easily trackable reports.""Usability needs to be improved."

More Codebeamer Cons →

"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great.""HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist.""It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on.""We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product.""The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall.""The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion.""The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard.""ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Pricing is good when compared to similar ALM solutions."
  • "It is reasonably priced and in accordance with the industry standards."
  • "They're not the most expensive product on the market, but they're not the cheapest either — I'd say codeBeamer ALM is moderately priced."
  • "Codebeamer is not a cheap solution."
  • More Codebeamer Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
  • "If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
  • "For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
  • "The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
  • "HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
  • "Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
  • "Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
  • "I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
  • More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:As I am not involved in purchasing the product, it is difficult for me to comment on the product's pricing model.
    Top Answer:Honestly, I don't think too much about what the product needs to improve. The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required. The product's UI is not friendly. I just think that… more »
    Top Answer:HP ALM and Jira can be easily integrated with the aid of a third-party Integration Solution To help you select the right integration approach and tool, you should first define your integration… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
    Top Answer:It was expensive for us. For the first two weeks, we had to employ people now and then as the system needed to be more accurate. It cost us a lot of money. I rate the solution's pricing as a seven or… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    3,923
    Comparisons
    3,058
    Reviews
    4
    Average Words per Review
    454
    Rating
    8.0
    Views
    9,202
    Comparisons
    3,969
    Reviews
    17
    Average Words per Review
    424
    Rating
    7.4
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    codeBeamer ALM
    Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
    Learn More
    Overview

    codeBeamer ALM is a market-leading Application Lifecycle Management platform. It is holistically integrated, and is packed with features that help you develop better products faster. Scale, monitor, control, and report on your entire development lifecycle conveniently, and comply with safety-critical regulations. Cut development time and costs.

    OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.
    Sample Customers
    Medtronic, Align Technology, Daimler, Samsung, Harman, Dassault
    Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Manufacturing Company28%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Transportation Company7%
    Healthcare Company7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Insurance Company9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization53%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Computer Software Company6%
    Manufacturing Company5%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business29%
    Midsize Enterprise43%
    Large Enterprise29%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise71%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business7%
    Midsize Enterprise57%
    Large Enterprise37%
    Buyer's Guide
    Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 9 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 8.0, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Codebeamer writes "Good complexity, easy to set up, and integrates with everything". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and Parasoft Development Testing Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira and Tricentis qTest. See our Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

    See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

    We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.